SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
August, 10 2017, 11:15am EDT
Contact:
Global Communications Director: global-comms@350.org
450,000+ Comments Against Keystone XL Pipeline Delivered to Nebraska Commission
Comments were delivered during hearings on whether to allow Keystone XL pipeline in Nebraska
Lincoln, NE
**PHOTOS: View and download photos of the event for use by media**
(https://www.flickr.com/photos/boldnebraska/albums/72157687430500175)
Today, over 461,000 public comments were delivered to the Nebraska Public Service Commissioners, urging them to reject a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline through the state. The comments were collected by Bold Nebraska, CREDO, Sierra Club, 350.org, Oil Change International, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Friends of the Earth U.S.
(WATCH: Facebook Live video of delivery feat. comments from Bold Nebraska's Jane Kleeb: https://facebook.com/BoldNebraska/videos/1428084740573475)
The pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of tar sands oil per day through multiple states and onto the export market, would pass through land in Nebraska that farmers and ranchers have refused to sell to the pipeline company, TransCanada. The comment delivery took place during hearings held by the Nebraska Public Service Commission to determine whether or not to grant a construction permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.
A day before the hearings on August 6th, hundreds from Nebraska and surrounding states marched through the streets of Lincoln, highlighting the threat that Keystone XL poses to farmers, Tribal Nations, the climate, and countless communities along its route. Commissioners are expected to issue a decision on the matter by November 23rd. If the permit is granted, it would mandate the use of eminent domain for private gain, forcing Nebraskans to sell their land for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry.
QUOTES:
Jane Kleeb, Bold Nebraska:
"The amount of opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline is clear. Our water, property rights, climate and the Sovereign Rights of Native Nations are in the public interest and must be protected from this foreign tarsands pipeline."
Sara Shor, Keep it in the Ground Campaign Manager, 350.org:
"The Nebraska Public Service Commission has hundreds of thousands of people who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline. People across the country have been fighting Keystone XL for years -- they didn't want it from the beginning, and they don't want it now. This pipeline is and has always been a threat to our water, land, and climate, and the risks are not worth the reward. Already, solar panels are lining Keystone's proposed route, putting solutions in the path of the problem. It's time to stop this pipeline for good and invest in the renewable energy future we need."
John Crabtree, Campaign Representative, Sierra Club:
"For years, Nebraskans and concerned citizens across the country have made it clear that building Keystone XL would be wrong for Nebraska and wrong for America. Today's comment delivery represents the massive movement urging the PSC to protect Nebraska's land, water, and wildlife by rejecting this dirty, dangerous tar sands pipeline."
Josh Nelson, Deputy Political Director, CREDO:
"Hundreds of thousands of people around the country know that the Keystone XL pipeline is a bad idea that would pollute our water supplies and supercharge climate change. We'll soon find out if the Nebraska Public Service Commission is willing to stand up to Trump and a Canadian oil company by denying the permit needed for the pipeline to move forward. With a so-called president who publicly denies climate science and an administration in the pocket of Big Oil, it is crucial for state agencies to do their part by rejecting dirty fossil fuel projects like Keystone XL."
Collin Rees, Campaigner, Oil Change International:
"The Nebraska Public Service Commission faces a clear choice: Stand with a foreign oil company that has publically admitted they might not build this pipeline even if they get the permits, or stand with the people of Nebraska and a renewable energy future. Native tribes, farmers, ranchers, Nebraskans, and millions of activists around the globe have been fighting this Keystone XL for years, and they'll keep fighting until it's stopped for good. There's no sense in approving a pipeline full of tar sands, the dirtiest oil on earth, when we know we can't develop new fossil fuels and remain within climate limits. The PSC must reject this dirty export pipeline."
Marcie Keever, Director, Friends of the Earth:
"In the streets of Lincoln and across the state, Nebraskans have made their unified voice heard: Do not build this pipeline across our state. The fact that Nebraska has become the last line of defense between this dirty pipeline and our nation's clean water and clean air is a testament to the corruption and backroom dealings that put KXL in motion. It is time for the Nebraska Public Service Commission to listen to the people, instead of a corporation that is dead-set on destroying our environment so that their executives can profit."
Taylor McKinnon, campaigner, Center for Biological Diversity
"Propping up Canada's dying oil industry isn't worth the damage that Keystone XL would inflict on our land, water, wildlife and climate. The public gets this and has for years -- which is why so many people voiced their opposition again today. It's time for the Nebraska Public Service Commission to end Keystone XL for good."
350 is building a future that's just, prosperous, equitable and safe from the effects of the climate crisis. We're an international movement of ordinary people working to end the age of fossil fuels and build a world of community-led renewable energy for all.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Accused of ‘Intimidation Tactic’ for Attending Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Hearing in Person
In an unprecedented move, Trump arrived at the court after accusing conservative justices of being "disloyal" for ruling against him in previous cases.
Apr 01, 2026
President Donald Trump is being accused of trying to "intimidate" the US Supreme Court as it hears oral arguments on his attempt to kill birthright citizenship.
Trump broke nearly 250 years of precedent as he arrived at the high court on Wednesday morning to personally observe the proceedings, which no sitting president has done.
As Kathryn Watson, a reporter for CBS News, explained, historically, "presidents have avoided attendance in part to honor the separation of powers."
Trump was in attendance as the justices—three of whom he appointed—mulled what could be their most consequential decision in decades: whether to uphold an executive order that would strip away a fundamental guarantee of citizenship enshrined in the US Constitution.
Making it all the more unnerving were the president's comments about the high court on Tuesday night in the Oval Office after letting reporters know he was "going" to keep tabs on Wednesday's proceedings.
He specifically zeroed in on the Republican-leaning justices, describing those he appointed as “disloyal” for ruling against him in previous cases. While describing the liberal justices as rank partisans, who’ll vote against him no matter what, he said the conservatives were “very different.”
"They want to show how honorable they are, so a man can appoint them, and they can rule against him and be so proud of it," Trump said.
"Some people would call it stupidity," Trump went on. "Some people would call it disloyal."
The court is expected to rule this summer on the legality of Trump’s executive order declaring that the children born to undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas would no longer automatically become US citizens.
A lower court has already ruled against Trump's order, declaring it in violation of the 14th Amendment, which was passed following the Civil War and plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
The Supreme Court will now hear arguments from the Trump administration seeking to undo that fundamental understanding, including ones advanced over a century ago by a former Confederate officer who also helped to establish the “separate but equal” doctrine that legalized racial segregation for over half a century.
If the court votes to uphold Trump's executive order, hundreds of thousands of American citizens could become effectively stateless.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said it could also throw the citizenship of tens of millions more into doubt, as it would effectively require people with legal birth certificates to "prove" their parents' legal status.
Trump's effort to strip millions of people of their citizenship comes as his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ultimately deport "100 million people" from the country—a number that far exceeds the population of undocumented immigrants in the US.
DaMareo Cooper explained on Tuesday for Common Dreams that the Supreme Court's decision will determine "whether a president can rewrite one of the clearest promises embedded in American law":
If the court strikes down birthright citizenship, it would let the government decide who counts as American based on the circumstances of their birth.
The 14th Amendment’s authors understood the danger of that approach.
Once citizenship becomes conditional, every other right soon follows. Ending birthright citizenship would affect everyone—not just children of immigrants—in a system that has long questioned the belonging of people of color, including Black Americans.
Allowing the Trump administration to determine who counts as a citizen takes on even more weight in light of another likely unconstitutional executive order signed by the president on Tuesday, requiring DHS to create a "citizenship list" to determine who is allowed to vote in the 2026 election.
Given these extraordinary stakes, many observers fear that Trump’s appearance before the Supreme Court's deliberations on Wednesday is designed to send a message to the justices he's accused of being "disloyal."
Historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat called Trump's arrival at the high court an “intimidation tactic to remind judges of the costs of defying him.”
Josh Sorbe, a spokesperson for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, said, "The separation of powers is pure fiction at this point."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Constitution Is Not a Suggestion': Supreme Court Told to Protect Birthright Citizenship
One critic warned that upholding President Donald Trump’s executive order “would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides.”
Apr 01, 2026
As the US Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump's executive order revoking birthright citizenship, several legal experts, advocacy groups, and commentators warned about the dire consequences that would come from not striking it down.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, published an analysis on Monday explaining that, in an ideal world, the Supreme Court wouldn't even be entertaining arguments for upholding Trump's order because it so obviously violates the plain text of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment.
"Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution," wrote Waldman. "This has been the law for more than 150 years. The amendment overturned the notorious Dred Scott decision, which said that even free Black Americans could not be US citizens. The Supreme Court in 1898 confirmed the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, it ruled that children born here are citizens, even if their parents are not."
Waldman argued that "Donald Trump tried to Sharpie this out of the Constitution" with his executive order, but insisted that the 14th Amendment is "open and shut," making it easy for the Supreme Court to rule against the president.
The New York Times' Jamelle Bouie echoed Waldman's arguments in a Wednesday column, writing that "there are few lines in the Constitution that are as straightforward as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment," whose "explicit aim... was to settle the question of American citizenship for good."
Bouie also dissected assorted arguments made by right-wing legal scholars in support of Trump's executive order, finding that they fail to offer "any new evidence regarding the drafting of the 14th Amendment, the intent of its framers, or the public meaning as understood at ratification."
"The evidence in favor of the traditional view of the citizenship clause is overwhelming," Bouie added. "To rule otherwise is to say, in essence, that two plus two equals five."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, argued that the Supreme Court must strike down Trump's order because "the Constitution is not a suggestion, and its guarantees do not shift with the political winds of any one president."
"When the courts allow one president to change the definition of American citizenship with a stroke of a pen, it puts every American citizen at risk," Solomón added. "The Supreme Court must reject these unconstitutional overreaches before they cause irreversible harm to our families and our nation’s future."
Garrett Epps, legal affairs editor at Washington Monthly, warned that failing to uphold the 14th Amendment would create "an exploitable non-citizen class" who would live in the country without any constitutional rights or protections.
Picking apart Trump aide Stephen Miller's remarks about denying citizenship to children of a "foreign labor class," Epps argued that the real goal of the Trump administration's attack on the 14th Amendment isn't strictly mass deportations, but the elimination of rights to an entire group of US-based workers.
"As a practical matter," explained Epps, "reinstating a hereditary, lifelong, inferior status—which, after all, is what removing 'full political rights, including welfare and the right to vote' would mean—recreates the conditions for the growth of a racialized slave economy."
TV host and activist Padma Lakshmi, writing in a Wednesday New York Times column, also pointed to the horrific impact that eliminating birthright citizenship would have on families across the country.
"If the Supreme Court doesn't block this executive order, it would create a mess of legal and logistical consequences," Lakshmi argued. "Confusion would replace certainty, opening the door to discrimination and a patchwork of rules governing noncitizens’ access to our society. Hundreds of thousands of children born in the United States would be thrown into legal limbo every year."
The end result, Lakshmi said, "would create a permanent underclass of people born in the country but cut off from the rights that citizenship provides."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UN Human Rights Chief Calls Out Trump FCC for Threatening Media Over Iran War Coverage
"Full respect for media independence and freedoms is all the more important in such circumstances, as fundamental to holding governments to public account," said Volker Türk.
Apr 01, 2026
The United Nations' top human rights official on Tuesday accused a Trump administration agency of attempting to "limit media freedom" by publicly threatening outlets engaged in critical coverage of the Iran war.
Volker Türk, the UN human rights chief, specifically called out the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over its chairman's threat last month to pull the broadcast licenses of broadcasters accused by the administration of "news distortions." FCC Chair Brendan Carr issued the threat in response to a March 14 tirade by US President Donald Trump, who baselessly condemned The Wall Street Journal and other media outlets for publishing "intentionally misleading" war coverage.
Türk's mention of the FCC came at the tail-end of a statement decrying the "deepening clampdown on freedom of expression" amid the US-Israeli war on Iran. The UN official pointed to mass arbitrary detentions in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories, and Iran, as well as crackdowns on free assembly.
"There have also been attempts to limit media freedom, such as restrictions imposed by Israeli military censorship authorities, and a threat by the US Federal Communications Commission to revoke broadcast licenses for coverage deemed critical of the war," said Türk. "Full respect for media independence and freedoms is all the more important in such circumstances, as fundamental to holding governments to public account. The exercise of such rights must be protected, not threatened."
A day after the FCC chief threatened broadcasters, Trump floated "treason" charges against media outlets he accused of spreading "false information"—something the president does constantly.
Tom Jones, senior media writer at Poynter, wrote earlier this week that "perhaps the most dangerous figure in Trump’s aggression against the press is Brendan Carr," who "made his feelings abundantly clear at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas on Friday."
"He bragged about the damage Trump has done to the media," Jones wrote. "Carr told an approving crowd, 'Look at the results so far. PBS, defunded. NPR, defunded. Joy Reid, gone from MSNBC. Sleepy-eyes Chuck Todd, gone. Jim Acosta, gone. John Dickerson, gone. Stephen Colbert is leaving. CBS is under new ownership, and soon enough, CNN is going to have new ownership as well.'"
"Then," Jones added, "he chillingly said, 'So, we’re not at the point yet where we’re raising the mission accomplished flag, but President Trump is taking on the fake news media, and President Trump is winning.'"
Carr's attack on broadcasters over their Iran war coverage led Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) to reiterate his call for the FCC chair's resignation. In a letter to Carr, Markey wrote that the chairman's threat demonstrated his "continued effort to turn the FCC into Trump’s personal speech police."
Carr's threat to pull media outlets' broadcast licenses "follows that same logic but extends it to the coverage of an active military conflict, where the chilling effect on journalists and the damage to the public’s right to know are most severe."
Other Trump administration officials, most notably Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have vocally complained about press coverage of the illegal Iran war, describing American media outlets as insufficiently "patriotic."
Under Hegseth's leadership, the Pentagon recently ramped up its crackdown on journalists' access to the department following a court ruling against earlier press restrictions. As part of the new crackdown, the Pentagon closed a press area known as Correspondents' Corridor and moved reporters to an unfinished annex in a separate building.
“Closing the Correspondents’ Corridor and forcing escorted access undermines independent reporting at the Pentagon at a moment when the public needs clear, unfiltered information about the US military," said Mark Schoeff Jr., president of the National Press Club. "Independent reporting on the US military is not optional. It is essential to accountability, transparency, and public trust. Any policy that curtails that access should concern everyone who values a free and informed society.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular